List brand kits

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each returned profile (palette, fonts, logo, voice, gradeBias) and how the ids chain into autonomous_edit, though it says nothing about ordering, counts, or behavior when the user has no brand kits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler: the first states the resource and its payload, the second states the actionable output. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does by naming the five profile fields. The only gap is behavior at the edges — empty results, ordering, or how many kits can exist — which keeps it short of a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No syntax or filtering concerns exist for an argument-free list call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb plus resource ("List the user's brand profiles") with an enumeration of what each profile contains, which tells an agent exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly position itself against the sibling get_brand_kit or list_projects, so sibling differentiation is implied by plurality rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence gives concrete downstream context: the returned ids are fed into autonomous_edit via brandId / projectBrandId. That tells the agent when this call is a prerequisite, but there are no exclusions or explicit alternative-routing statements (e.g., when to use get_brand_kit instead).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.